It is not death. God will not take your soul if you are successfully rematerialized and are breathing again shortly. I have had many far too many postings on the tremendous scientific accuracy of the Holy Bible that almost all of you have read to have again explain the true and proven existence of our Lord and maker!

If a transporter is successful there is no death or cloning. The best use a human could have for it would be l,if in a position similar to McCoy in FTWIHAIHTTS, to have their molecules put into the transporter and stored there till a cure is found.

Forget "The Enemy Within". That was a well acted entertaining bunch of malarkey. Transporters could not create separate beings out random energy like that. That story would have been good for drunk Kirk to be telling in a space bar!

A process similar to how they got both Kirks back together could have been used in "Spock's Brain". But wasn't!

@Benton12 said:

It is not death. God will not take your soul if you are successfully rematerialized and are breathing again shortly. I have had many far too many postings on the tremendous scientific accuracy of the Holy Bible that almost all of you have read to have again explain the true and proven existence of our Lord and maker!

Take your proselytizing someplace else! This is NOT the place for your rantings about a sky fairy!

Or a drunk Mr. Scott!

Ignoring Bratface!

@Benton12 said:

Knixon, your blab of a reply makes positively no sense whatsoever. It is not clone but the actual object back intact again . Pure and simple. But the possibility of slight but fatal failure is tremendous.

No, and the video clip in my previous comment explains that too. Duplicate Kirk in TOS and Duplicate Riker in TNG, alone, prove that the transporter is not actually transporting that same individual. It would be impossible to end up with TWO copies if it were.

@Knixon said:

@Benton12 said:

Knixon, your blab of a reply makes positively no sense whatsoever. It is not clone but the actual object back intact again . Pure and simple. But the possibility of slight but fatal failure is tremendous.

No, and the video clip in my previous comment explains that too. Duplicate Kirk in TOS and Duplicate Riker in TNG, alone, prove that the transporter is not actually transporting that same individual. It would be impossible to end up with TWO copies if it were.

The transporter is a spectacular creation that has been part of the plot in some fascinating Star Trek episodes, and it has raised many questions. One of them is: Where did the matter come from to make a duplicate of Kirk and Riker?

@wonder2wonder said:

@Knixon said:

@Benton12 said:

Knixon, your blab of a reply makes positively no sense whatsoever. It is not clone but the actual object back intact again . Pure and simple. But the possibility of slight but fatal failure is tremendous.

No, and the video clip in my previous comment explains that too. Duplicate Kirk in TOS and Duplicate Riker in TNG, alone, prove that the transporter is not actually transporting that same individual. It would be impossible to end up with TWO copies if it were.

The transporter is a spectacular creation that has been part of the plot in some fascinating Star Trek episodes, and it has raised many questions. One of them is: Where did the matter come from to make a duplicate of Kirk and Riker?

The thing to remember is that the transporter was just made up because they didn't want to spend time on shuttles. Which is kinda odd since they had ~50 minutes of story time per episode for TOS, and yet with the Enterprise series they used shuttles despite having maybe 40 minutes of show per episode. But they didn't always show the boarding/deboarding, launching, etc. On many occasions they just showed the shuttle arriving somewhere. Which could take even less time than going to the transporter room, etc.

Like I said, Knixon!

Oh, and aside from issues with the transporter, I suspect long-range sensors as were often brought up, seem unlikely to say the least. Detecting life-forms from across interplanetary distances? Nah.